Post by littlepea on Aug 2, 2005 19:31:42 GMT -5
the other day i stumbled across a few websites talking about how the 9/11 attacks were not caused by al-quaeda and osama bin laden but were probably orchestrated by the US government - anyone else think this might be the case?
i was skeptical at first but i looked at some of the information they were basing this opinion on and i've got to say that there's some pretty dodgy stuff going on with the US government's side of the story ...
firstly the investigation into the attacks had a limited budget of something like $600,000 - why limit something like this to such a small budget, indeed why limit it at all?
secondly the pilots of the planes that flew into the WTC buildings and the pentagon (the ones that the US government blamed at least) had actually flunked out of pilot school as they were completely incompetent, yet somehow they managed to navigate boeing 757 planes to find the WTC towers without any assistance from ground control, and the one that flew into the pentagon managed to aim it so that he approached the wall at 2ft above ground level - it's a pretty far-fetched explanation, don't you think?
furthermore, fire was supposed to be what caused the buildings to fall down. fire could never do that to such a building and if you watch how the towers fall down, they fall at free-fall speed (it took 8.4 seconds for the entire noth building to collapse) - this sort of demolition could only take place if explosives were used.
also, building 7 of the WTC collapsed in the same way for apparently no reason whatsoever. the government didn't try to explain this, though, they just say "we don't know" ...
the US government say that it was a 757 that flew into the pentagon yet there is absolutely no debris surrounding the building which indicates that a plane of any size was involved in the impact. there's also no trail leading up to the building which might suggest that a large plane had crash landed; there is only one impact hole in the pentagon building which punctured 5 walls of reinforced concrete - this was apparently made by the nose of the plane (which is relatively flimsy) yet there is no damage where the engines would have hit; the area of damage to the building is far far smaller than what it should be if a 757 hit it; eye-witnesses say they thought it was more like a missile or a small drone; all the cameras which might have caught the incident on tape were confiscated by the FBI (unlike the cameras which caught the planes flying into the WTC and even the collapse of the buildings).
so what do you think? have you thought about it before? looked into it for yourself? or have you just trusted your government? have a look, see what you can find ...
i was skeptical at first but i looked at some of the information they were basing this opinion on and i've got to say that there's some pretty dodgy stuff going on with the US government's side of the story ...
firstly the investigation into the attacks had a limited budget of something like $600,000 - why limit something like this to such a small budget, indeed why limit it at all?
secondly the pilots of the planes that flew into the WTC buildings and the pentagon (the ones that the US government blamed at least) had actually flunked out of pilot school as they were completely incompetent, yet somehow they managed to navigate boeing 757 planes to find the WTC towers without any assistance from ground control, and the one that flew into the pentagon managed to aim it so that he approached the wall at 2ft above ground level - it's a pretty far-fetched explanation, don't you think?
furthermore, fire was supposed to be what caused the buildings to fall down. fire could never do that to such a building and if you watch how the towers fall down, they fall at free-fall speed (it took 8.4 seconds for the entire noth building to collapse) - this sort of demolition could only take place if explosives were used.
also, building 7 of the WTC collapsed in the same way for apparently no reason whatsoever. the government didn't try to explain this, though, they just say "we don't know" ...
the US government say that it was a 757 that flew into the pentagon yet there is absolutely no debris surrounding the building which indicates that a plane of any size was involved in the impact. there's also no trail leading up to the building which might suggest that a large plane had crash landed; there is only one impact hole in the pentagon building which punctured 5 walls of reinforced concrete - this was apparently made by the nose of the plane (which is relatively flimsy) yet there is no damage where the engines would have hit; the area of damage to the building is far far smaller than what it should be if a 757 hit it; eye-witnesses say they thought it was more like a missile or a small drone; all the cameras which might have caught the incident on tape were confiscated by the FBI (unlike the cameras which caught the planes flying into the WTC and even the collapse of the buildings).
so what do you think? have you thought about it before? looked into it for yourself? or have you just trusted your government? have a look, see what you can find ...